Forget ever being able to sleep on a plane again, with 200 cell phones ringing and people playing annoying games and 100 laptop screens lighting up the cabin, just like in a movie theater, too many people going to be selfish.
...So it's selfish to use a computer on a plane, but not selfish to complain that 200 people are not forced to sit silently because you can't be bothered to sleep at night?
But I'm willing to wager that for most accidents, there is at least 0.2 seconds of [unprintable], in which case you will try to swerve out of the way. In this case, as was the case for me, your hands and arms will inevitably be right in front of the airbag, since you're twisting the wheel in an effort to go around whatever it is in front of you.
The solution is obvious: when in danger, don't try to evade, just let go of the wheel.
SVG images designed for 256x256 look horrible when scaled to 16x16 or 32x32.
True but irrelevant, since the issue here is scaling graphics up as the DPI increases, to keep them the same size on the screen. An SVG designed for 16x16 will still look nice and sharp when scaled to 256x256, while a bitmap won't, to put it mildly.
In light of this discovery, imagine if the Prohibition had stuck and became global. And imagine what we could accomplish if the researchers were free to soak the wires in LSD and tires in cannabis solutions? We could have free energy and flying cars, because the laws of physics are like, whatever man.
Plan 9 from Outer Space was a fucking awesome movie and you can't say otherwise until you personally create your own films.
It is. All the awful elements come together to form something that's so horrible the quality underflows and becomes awesome. It's not a good movie, but it's good entertainment.
So it'll just be like Fission, Gas or Coal? Provide a heat source to boil water to drive a turbine? How's that going to power my starship? Is there anyway to use something like an MHD generator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHD_generator) to convert the fusion plasma directly into energy?
No, an MHD generator won't work for neutrons, since neutrons don't interact with the electromagnetic force. However, you could use Project Orion design for a starship. There's an additional benefit: Project Orion is doable with today's technology (well, 60's technology to be exact), without requiring any breakthroughs such as controlled fusion reactors.
The by-product of the reaction that generates the energy is the issue here. Efficiency losses on energy conversion has nothing to do with the reactions by-products impact on the makeup of the atmosphere.
Of course they do. Conversion losses mean that you need to burn more fuel to get the same amount of energy, which produces more by-products, which makes the impact bigger.
For a practical example, see this graph about steam engine efficiency: if you need to produce a megajoule of energy, a modern steam engine needs just a tiny fraction of coal to produce it than the first steam engines did, and thus also produces just a tiny fraction of CO2 as a byproduct.
This only says not to buy those things with company money. IOW, Microsoft doesn't want its own company money to be supporting Apple and other competitors. It is not applicable for staff buying them for personal use.
Out of curiosity, if it was applicable to personal use, would it be legal? Common sense would indicate no, but there's been a lot of crazy things going on lately, and plenty of companies certainly like to think of people as serfs.
Stop the world garbage collector? Here's a nickel, kid, get youself a better VM.
Use your nickel for coffee and wake up, so you realize that every thread will eventually run out of memory and join the melee for memory, and any ongoing memory access besides the garbage collector will simply make the trashing worse.
Tracing GC is hard to optimize, ref count is hard to implement, take a pick.
Ref counting isn't garbage collection. And since you don't actually seem to be disagreeing with me, what's your point?
The economy will never be "post-scacity", as there's only so much shoreline property. There will always be desireable stuff that is scarce, and there will always be stuff that is desireable it's scarce - even if it's just the concert T-shirt that shows you listened to that band before it was cool.
However, there is a huge qualitative difference between an economy where food and other basic necessities are scarce, and an economy where collectible t-shirts are scarce: in the former you either be a cog in the system or die, while in the latter you are free to live pretty much as you please. In fact the latter could certainly be called a post-scarcity economy, since all the things that are scarce are in the "might be nice to have" -category.
Maybe its just me, but your logic of using an illegal situation to justify why a digital economy shouldn't exist seems like a bad argument.
It's not. What keeps the government or any other organization in check is that there are ways around its power. Making the government actually capable of monitoring the small person-to-person transactions is asking for trouble. A society that's actually capable of enforcing all its laws is just a truly horrendous tyranny waiting to happen, and probably won't have to wait for long.
The last thing we need is giving moral busybodies and corporate overlords even more power to stop us doing anything that offends their god or threatens our "productivity".
The firefox guys should've kept their versions at c.y instead of dropping the constant c, and everyone would've been happy. A number that changes scares people - but prefix it with a number that doesn't change and people are ok with it.
More to the point, c+1.y is supposed to indicate that the release has major new features compared to c.*, while c.y+1 means some bug(s) in c.y have been fixed.
Firefox changed this scheme partially for marketing reasons, but mostly to remove the ability for users to stay on a particular c series. In other words, you can't get bugfixes without new features, which inevitable end up introducing new bugs. No, you have to act as beta tester for whatever the Firefox team comes up with. At the same time, if the Firefox team decides you don't need no stinking status bar, you will either give up either it or bug fixes. To put it even blunter, Firefox versioning scheme changed so that users would have less choice, and would have harder time forming a critical mass at any particular "feature level" to make a branch.
That's why people hate the new Firefox versioning scheme: it's a deliberate attempt to make them as powerless as possible in an open-source project. Which is understandable from a developer point of view, since backporting bugfixes into old branches is a waste of resources. And of course every designer wants their pet feature be used by everyone, so succumbing to the temptation of forcing the issue is quite understandable.
Your sarcasm is noted, but what facts have you to support the point you appear to be trying to make?...I see.
I dunno about the "half the people" part, but the part about secred deals being against public interest is simple logic: if the rumours were worse than the truth, the politician would simply leak the deal - it's in his best interests to look as good as possible, after all. Thus, as long as the deal remains unknown, we know for certain that the people who know it consider it worse than whatever speculation we engage in here.
That secret deals make a mockery of democracy is also worth considering. How can we hold our leaders accountable, if we don't know what they're up to?
Because people often have an adverse emotional reaction to a herd of photographers persuing them.
The thing is, a "herd of photographers" is an annoyance, just like, say, a herd of mosquitos would be. Now, everyone would rather avoid a herd of mosquitos; but if you do so in a manner that obviously endangers yourself and others, and it ends badly, the fault lies with you, not the mosquitos, no matter how disgusting their bloodsucking parasitic nature might be.
I hate to use the term "personal responsibility", since it's been corrupted into a form of Just World Fallacy by right-wing bandits, but nothing else really fits here: just because you have an "adverse emotional reaction" doesn't mean that a stupid decision made by you wasn't really made by you. It just means that the rest of us might take it into account and be more lenient or sympathetic than we otherwise might be (see various heat-of-passion laws). Luckily, that doesn't apply here, since the people making those stupid, recless and frankly extremely selfish decisions ended up killing themselves rather than some innocent bystander.
In other words, adults are expected to put up with some amount of "adverse emotional reaction" without acting crazy.
The fact is the paparazzi pursuing was a factor.
Simply because someone selling you a faulty alarm clock directly resulted in you waking late the next morning doesn't mean that they are a factor in you speeding on your way to work, at least not in the "partially responsible for" sense.
Meanwhile, in Python, I can potentially teach a particular donkey to quack at runtime with donkeyobject.quack=Duck.quack (provided quack is fairly self contained).
But if quack is self-contained, how is this useful? Why would whatever function you're passing donkeyobject to call donkeyobject.quack() rather than quack(donkeyobject), if quacking is self-contained enough to be crafted into generic donkeys just like that?
Besides, there is no reason why a static type system can't simply take function assignment into account when determining the type of an object.
Give you an example: evolution. Religious faith in science says "Evolution is proven. Anyone who believes otherwise is batty." A more scientific viewpoint of it would look at the progression of evolution theory, and see that evolution is simply a pretty good theory that definitely has needed refinement, and almost as definitely will still need refinement.
You picked a bad example. With everything from breeding dogs to bacteria developing immunity to various drugs to fossil record speaks in favour of evolution, I have a very hard time to believe that any arguments against are done in good faith.
A person with that second viewpoint will look at creationists' arguments against it -- and they do have some good ones -- not as being batty, but actually as pushing the theory to account for holes that still exist.
Creationists aren't making scientific attacks against any particular evolutionary theory, they believe that the Genesis is a literal depiction of events and that evolution - specifically, the concept that humans evolved - conflicts with this (ironically, a literal reading of Genesis would actually require evolution to happen afterwards to get from two humans to current multiple ethnicities), so they come up with (usually batshit insane) attacks against it (and science in general, since studying the world will pretty much inevitably lead to the concept of evolution), with the whole Intelligent Design thing being the latest.
Let me assure you: it isn't that the creationists are wacko. It is that they've really found a flaw in the theory.
Yes, they are. Specifically, they are starting with an unassailable preconception of reality - namely, that the Genesis is a literal depiction of events that took place 4000-10000 years ago - and fit all evidence into this framework. This, of course, results in an extremely twisted worldview. And the "flaw" in evolution is that it conflicts rather seriously with creationism.
None of this means that creationism is false, BTW; in other words, none of this proves that the world wasn't created 4000-10000 years ago (or last Thursday, for that matter). It's just that no one would look at all the available evidence and come to that conclusion without having an unassailable (by evidence) belief in it beforehand.
In other words, "creationism" is what happens when confirmation bias meets bad theology and crusader mentality.
I'm not familiar enough with other garbage collected languages and such workloads to know if this is inherent or just a problem with the Python GC.
It's inherent. I noticed the exact same effect on Java programs I wrote: once the program starts using swap, garbage collection takes forever. I believe that the problem is because a garbage collector has to, in the worst case, hit every page of the working set to trace live objects, possibly several times (meaning that the page can potentially be swapped in and out several times per collection).
But does that mean that the rest of us - and specifically their victims - should pretend that their past douchbaggery never happened? Even if you'll never do it again doesn't change the fact that you did.
There are very FEW things that should earn someone a "lifetime of payback".
On what do you base this assertion? There are plenty of actions that have long-lasting consequences for others. Why should their perpetrators get over them any sooner than his victims?
I understand that you are speaking from a passionate place and it's definately hard to always practice the golden rule.!
The Golden Rule becomes problematic when we're talking about crimes committed against someone else. Forgiving the perpetrator - or even worse, putting pressure on the victim to forgive - can easily become abusive towards the victim. That's how the Catholic Child Rape Scandal went, for example.
Oppose this to the stupid Clementi, who simply should have split Ravi in twain with his battleaxe in the name of Crom rather than leap off a bridge.
Fixed that for you.
In real life, basing your decisions on macho fantasies tends to cost you, such as by spending 10-20% of your life behind bars. Also, only people who are "inherently dangerous" are those with serious mental problems. Finally, how can you refute a ridiculous stereotype just to substitute your own and not notice?
That means that in C++ you can guarantee when resources are deallocated. You can't really do that in Java, since finalize is never guaranteed to be called and is not really a destructor.
Anyone who understands C++ reads operators just like functions.
This is precisely the problem with C++: it's impossible to say what any given line of code actually does without examining every line the compiler has seen before, including other included files.
Operator overloading when done well vastly decreases maintainance required because the code becomes much, much simpler to read.
By definition, if you're using a feature "well" you're using it in a way that's doing more good than harm. That doesn't mean that the feature is good.
Slashdot Mirror
If you use a heat exchanger to warm incoming air with outgoing air, it should be possible to recover and reuse the moisture.
Alternatively, you could just give up and give people military rations.
...So it's selfish to use a computer on a plane, but not selfish to complain that 200 people are not forced to sit silently because you can't be bothered to sleep at night?
The solution is obvious: when in danger, don't try to evade, just let go of the wheel.
True but irrelevant, since the issue here is scaling graphics up as the DPI increases, to keep them the same size on the screen. An SVG designed for 16x16 will still look nice and sharp when scaled to 256x256, while a bitmap won't, to put it mildly.
In light of this discovery, imagine if the Prohibition had stuck and became global. And imagine what we could accomplish if the researchers were free to soak the wires in LSD and tires in cannabis solutions? We could have free energy and flying cars, because the laws of physics are like, whatever man.
It is. All the awful elements come together to form something that's so horrible the quality underflows and becomes awesome. It's not a good movie, but it's good entertainment.
No, an MHD generator won't work for neutrons, since neutrons don't interact with the electromagnetic force. However, you could use Project Orion design for a starship. There's an additional benefit: Project Orion is doable with today's technology (well, 60's technology to be exact), without requiring any breakthroughs such as controlled fusion reactors.
Never. Even if we could get it working tomorrow, it's still nuclear power and thus scary.
Of course they do. Conversion losses mean that you need to burn more fuel to get the same amount of energy, which produces more by-products, which makes the impact bigger.
For a practical example, see this graph about steam engine efficiency: if you need to produce a megajoule of energy, a modern steam engine needs just a tiny fraction of coal to produce it than the first steam engines did, and thus also produces just a tiny fraction of CO2 as a byproduct.
Out of curiosity, if it was applicable to personal use, would it be legal? Common sense would indicate no, but there's been a lot of crazy things going on lately, and plenty of companies certainly like to think of people as serfs.
Climate change is the fever you caught while screwing Gaia.
Use your nickel for coffee and wake up, so you realize that every thread will eventually run out of memory and join the melee for memory, and any ongoing memory access besides the garbage collector will simply make the trashing worse.
Ref counting isn't garbage collection. And since you don't actually seem to be disagreeing with me, what's your point?
However, there is a huge qualitative difference between an economy where food and other basic necessities are scarce, and an economy where collectible t-shirts are scarce: in the former you either be a cog in the system or die, while in the latter you are free to live pretty much as you please. In fact the latter could certainly be called a post-scarcity economy, since all the things that are scarce are in the "might be nice to have" -category.
It's not. What keeps the government or any other organization in check is that there are ways around its power. Making the government actually capable of monitoring the small person-to-person transactions is asking for trouble. A society that's actually capable of enforcing all its laws is just a truly horrendous tyranny waiting to happen, and probably won't have to wait for long.
The last thing we need is giving moral busybodies and corporate overlords even more power to stop us doing anything that offends their god or threatens our "productivity".
More to the point, c+1.y is supposed to indicate that the release has major new features compared to c.*, while c.y+1 means some bug(s) in c.y have been fixed.
Firefox changed this scheme partially for marketing reasons, but mostly to remove the ability for users to stay on a particular c series. In other words, you can't get bugfixes without new features, which inevitable end up introducing new bugs. No, you have to act as beta tester for whatever the Firefox team comes up with. At the same time, if the Firefox team decides you don't need no stinking status bar, you will either give up either it or bug fixes. To put it even blunter, Firefox versioning scheme changed so that users would have less choice, and would have harder time forming a critical mass at any particular "feature level" to make a branch.
That's why people hate the new Firefox versioning scheme: it's a deliberate attempt to make them as powerless as possible in an open-source project. Which is understandable from a developer point of view, since backporting bugfixes into old branches is a waste of resources. And of course every designer wants their pet feature be used by everyone, so succumbing to the temptation of forcing the issue is quite understandable.
Revealed? Whatever for?
I dunno about the "half the people" part, but the part about secred deals being against public interest is simple logic: if the rumours were worse than the truth, the politician would simply leak the deal - it's in his best interests to look as good as possible, after all. Thus, as long as the deal remains unknown, we know for certain that the people who know it consider it worse than whatever speculation we engage in here.
That secret deals make a mockery of democracy is also worth considering. How can we hold our leaders accountable, if we don't know what they're up to?
The thing is, a "herd of photographers" is an annoyance, just like, say, a herd of mosquitos would be. Now, everyone would rather avoid a herd of mosquitos; but if you do so in a manner that obviously endangers yourself and others, and it ends badly, the fault lies with you, not the mosquitos, no matter how disgusting their bloodsucking parasitic nature might be.
I hate to use the term "personal responsibility", since it's been corrupted into a form of Just World Fallacy by right-wing bandits, but nothing else really fits here: just because you have an "adverse emotional reaction" doesn't mean that a stupid decision made by you wasn't really made by you. It just means that the rest of us might take it into account and be more lenient or sympathetic than we otherwise might be (see various heat-of-passion laws). Luckily, that doesn't apply here, since the people making those stupid, recless and frankly extremely selfish decisions ended up killing themselves rather than some innocent bystander.
In other words, adults are expected to put up with some amount of "adverse emotional reaction" without acting crazy.
Simply because someone selling you a faulty alarm clock directly resulted in you waking late the next morning doesn't mean that they are a factor in you speeding on your way to work, at least not in the "partially responsible for" sense.
But if quack is self-contained, how is this useful? Why would whatever function you're passing donkeyobject to call donkeyobject.quack() rather than quack(donkeyobject), if quacking is self-contained enough to be crafted into generic donkeys just like that?
Besides, there is no reason why a static type system can't simply take function assignment into account when determining the type of an object.
You picked a bad example. With everything from breeding dogs to bacteria developing immunity to various drugs to fossil record speaks in favour of evolution, I have a very hard time to believe that any arguments against are done in good faith.
Creationists aren't making scientific attacks against any particular evolutionary theory, they believe that the Genesis is a literal depiction of events and that evolution - specifically, the concept that humans evolved - conflicts with this (ironically, a literal reading of Genesis would actually require evolution to happen afterwards to get from two humans to current multiple ethnicities), so they come up with (usually batshit insane) attacks against it (and science in general, since studying the world will pretty much inevitably lead to the concept of evolution), with the whole Intelligent Design thing being the latest.
Yes, they are. Specifically, they are starting with an unassailable preconception of reality - namely, that the Genesis is a literal depiction of events that took place 4000-10000 years ago - and fit all evidence into this framework. This, of course, results in an extremely twisted worldview. And the "flaw" in evolution is that it conflicts rather seriously with creationism.
None of this means that creationism is false, BTW; in other words, none of this proves that the world wasn't created 4000-10000 years ago (or last Thursday, for that matter). It's just that no one would look at all the available evidence and come to that conclusion without having an unassailable (by evidence) belief in it beforehand.
In other words, "creationism" is what happens when confirmation bias meets bad theology and crusader mentality.
It's inherent. I noticed the exact same effect on Java programs I wrote: once the program starts using swap, garbage collection takes forever. I believe that the problem is because a garbage collector has to, in the worst case, hit every page of the working set to trace live objects, possibly several times (meaning that the page can potentially be swapped in and out several times per collection).
But does that mean that the rest of us - and specifically their victims - should pretend that their past douchbaggery never happened? Even if you'll never do it again doesn't change the fact that you did.
On what do you base this assertion? There are plenty of actions that have long-lasting consequences for others. Why should their perpetrators get over them any sooner than his victims?
The Golden Rule becomes problematic when we're talking about crimes committed against someone else. Forgiving the perpetrator - or even worse, putting pressure on the victim to forgive - can easily become abusive towards the victim. That's how the Catholic Child Rape Scandal went, for example.
Fixed that for you.
In real life, basing your decisions on macho fantasies tends to cost you, such as by spending 10-20% of your life behind bars. Also, only people who are "inherently dangerous" are those with serious mental problems. Finally, how can you refute a ridiculous stereotype just to substitute your own and not notice?
What's wrong with "FooBar foo = null; try { foo = new FooBar(); foo.dosomething();} finally {if (foo != null) foo.freeResources(); foo = null;}"?
This is precisely the problem with C++: it's impossible to say what any given line of code actually does without examining every line the compiler has seen before, including other included files.
By definition, if you're using a feature "well" you're using it in a way that's doing more good than harm. That doesn't mean that the feature is good.